User talk:Rpvictor
Welcome Hi, welcome to Nation Ceation Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Luimnigh page. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Scorched000 (Talk) 19:21, June 27, 2011 Thank you for comending my efforts against Scorched and his denying of my freedom of speech Map: http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF&msa=0&msid= 203080500178738449999.0004a9e992e4743dc5dc7 Wiki table If you can, can you make the wikipedia table that is for the wars (Look at the ww2 or any other war)? It would be helpful for the details. I would just need the table, as I can fill in the details. I'll see what I can do, but I don't have any experience in making a template, so I don't know when or if this will get done. Rpvictor 16:36, July 28, 2011 (UTC) It's not pretty, but I think I've got it. Go to Template:War Infobox. Rpvictor 19:54, July 28, 2011 (UTC) Atlantis How did Military not be a category? There's a giant section for it, as well as wars. Atlantis isn't an article about the military or a war. It's an article that includes information about a military and wars, but categories are for articles that are primarily about whatever that category is. Rpvictor 20:58, August 4, 2011 (UTC) Hey, the deleting images isn't exactly fair. If the images from my page Atlantis get deleted, I'll need to spend 10 or so minutes just to put them back in. What are you talking about? I've deleted two images today. One of them I uploaded myself and the second one contained explicit material. There was an additional image that I removed from a page because I needed to revert back to a much earlier edit. I have not unfairly deleted images or tampered with your Atlantis page beyond removing two unnecessary categories and moving the picture of King James III so that it no longer put the word 'killed' on two different lines. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it. Rpvictor 23:44, August 4, 2011 (UTC) You said that images ___ days old would be deleted. First, please make a new comment for new topics in the future. Secondly, I said that I was considering deleting old images that have not ever been used. Images that are on the Atlantis page, or any other page, have been used and therefore won't be deleted. Rpvictor 12:41, August 5, 2011 (UTC) Oh, okay. Thanks! War How do I make a war infobox? When editing a page, you should see the word 'Inset' and then several white boxes beneath it. Select the one that says Template and then select Other Template/Magic Word. In the search box coming up, type in War Infobox. Eventually you should see Template:War Infobox below the search bar. Click that and the War Infobox will be inserted. Rpvictor 15:46, August 6, 2011 (UTC) I guess you know I really am LiveLong689. I made this account a long time ago and didn't feel like making another. RE: Second Warning The picture was not photoshopped, however, Pen Par later told me he was joking about what he said. AFTER I'd posted it on the wiki. I had intentions to take it down then, but was called away from the computer and subsequently forgot. As for the other page, could you put that back up as that was the beginning of a database of old CYOC threads that others were going to add to. Legless562 08:41, August 14, 2011 (UTC) Just append the links to the Create Your Own Country page. A list of links does not warrant its own page. Rpvictor 19:15, August 14, 2011 (UTC) Videos I can't quite seem to get the video I wanted on my country's page. Is there some special thing I have to do first? Protection Hey there, Recently Clumsy vandalised my page, removing the entire content. Galaman fixed it before I came around, but he still is threatening to do it again. I would like to know, is there anyway that I can have my page so only a few people can edit it (As in, the people who will help it)? Thanks! (I'm actually Lilninjabro6, forgot to log in) 12:04, September 3, 2011 (UTC) Unfortunately, you cannot block a user from simply editing one page. Rpvictor 14:20, September 3, 2011 (UTC) How to report vandalism? After recent events, I was wondering if there was actually some way of directly reporting vandalism to pages, rather than leaving messages on talk pages and hoping the owner of the talk page isn't busy. (As you can tell, I don't use Wikis much.) Thanks! Galaman 19:09, September 3, 2011 (UTC) To my knowledge, no, there is not. The best thing you can do is leave a message on the page of an administrator, like myself. You get a pop-up whenever somebody messages you on the Wiki, so administrators usually handle these immediately after they log on. Rpvictor 13:14, September 4, 2011 (UTC) Bornika As I'm sure you're aware, the Bornika page has been having issues. In CYOC, Bornika has been destroyed and therefore I am asking for you to delete the page. [[User:Will!|'Will!']][[User talk:Will!|'Talk']] 12:04, September 4, 2011 (UTC) : It's not considered proper to delete a page summarily unless it's spam, vandalism, a duplicate page, or that sort of thing. I'll propose the page for deletion and get an opinion on if it should or should not be deleted. If the vote is for its deletion, it will be removed. If not, then the page may be given protected status, which prevents any non-administrator from editing it. Rpvictor 13:17, September 4, 2011 (UTC) :: Don't worry, I am well familiar with Wikia Procedures. Can I make one suggestion to you - When replying to messages on your talk page, reply on the others page. This gives them a message so they know you've replied. That is also usual wikia procedure. Also, while on the topic of suggestions, when replying on talkpages, use the indent feature for each reply. This helps make it more readable; I've shown an example in our above conversation [[User:Will!|'Will!']][[User talk:Will!|'Talk']] 23:44, September 4, 2011 (UTC) ::: Thank you for the advice. Rpvictor 01:25, September 5, 2011 (UTC) ::: Bias on NC: 35 Narrated Page "RP, don't be biased on this page please. It is a 3rd person overview for a reason. I caught some of your bias on here" - Bowswer5 "If you're going to accuse me of bias, at least tell me where I was biased." - Rpvictor "Here is where I thought you were being biased. >stating that operation "Sea Hawk" would have "catastrophic" consequences >describing "Sea Hawk" in your own opinion, lots of subjective wording. >promoting "Bleeding Heart" over "Sea Hawk", wrong over Bismarck's intention of wanting the Canal. >citing that Bismarck's petition to overrule you as a CEO was a joke, when it wasn't. >believing that one of the reasons why the Vasari Empire declared war on the Demarchy was because of a lack of self esteem." - Bowswer5" None of those examples are biased. As people’s personal approval for Bismarck, which had been somewhat lost due to Sea Hawk, drastically increased the prestige of his nation, it counts as a significant consequence. Admittedly, significant is not catastrophic, but a mistake like that is poor word choice, not bias. The wording I used to describe Sea Hawk was not subjective. The only part even remotely subjective is that there were several problems with it. Sith and I discussed inherent problems in Sea Hawk at length, so it is factual. I was not promoting Bleeding Heart over Sea Hawk. I said that Bleeding Heart was successful in countering Sea Hawk due to fundamental problems in Sea Hawk. Again, this is factual, as Sith will attest. Bismarck offered to agree to the voiding of the Canal in exchange for receiving permission to expand into Alaska and Canada. Again, this is entirely factual. Bismarck did not have a petition to remove me as CEO. He tried to hold a trial. Regardless, he admitted that he was trolling, so it is a joke. That lack of self-esteem was a factor in the War of the Psychopaths is also entirely factual. During one of the inquisitions on the subject, Pen Par stated that the feeling that Glock was superior to him was a partial motivation for his declaration of war." - Rpvictor "Rp, you are attempting to flame myself and drag my name through the mud. I request that you present the narrations as an unbiased, 3rd Party Observations rather than "Bismarck did this but failed so hard because I did this and therefore am better!" Also, the Trial was a joke, Bowswer. I confirmed this on the thread." - Bismarck II "I am not attempting to flame or degrade you. As the only section even arguably consistent with what you have described is the section regarding Sea Hawk, can you explain why you think the section is biased? I want subjective parts of the paragraph, important facts that were omitted or any demonstrably false statements, not 'It implies that you're better than me,' which is itself subjective." - Rpvictor "Rpvictor, unlike the other important events mentioned in this article, the one describing the Sea Hawk incident describes its apparent flaws in greater details compared to the opposition (in this case being Bleeding Heart and you, Rpvictor). Take a look at this sentence, because it obviously shows superiority over Sea Hawk: "Rpvictor's earlier Bleeding Heart project was his far more specific counter to Sea Hawk." Not even the war between F3NR3L and Glock contains that extra sense of one-sidedness. The reason why I suspected you of bias here is not because of the wording itself, but because the entire paragraph about the Sea Hawk incident gives me the impression that you were using this article as a backup of your stance on the issue." - Bowswer5 "Bowswer, there's no need to try and hide who you are. As to your points. The reason that I pointed out flaws with Sea Hawk but not with Bleeding Heart is because Bleeding Heart was a counter to a very vague covert operation. Without specifics for it to fail at, it couldn't fail. Secondly, that I devoted a disproportionate amount of words to the Sea Hawk debacle. The reason I did that was because most of what is on this page pertaining to Sea Hawk was never posted on the thread. As it says in sentence one, details that were not given on the thread are going to be put on here. I do plan on adding non-thread-based details on Glock-Pen when I finished narrating that part." - Rpvictor "I wasn't trying to hide who I was RP. I thought I was logged in and I couldn't edit my post after I sent the comment to include "-Bowswer5". As for your points, Bismarck claims that he was unable to actually elaborate on Sea Hawk further with Sith during the discussion of voiding it between you and Sith, or even have the chance to counter or debate your points that convinced Sith to void Sea Hawk. There was no formal debate considering the Sea Hawk situation." - Bowswer5 Is the accusation that I was biased, or that I didn't consult Bismarck before writing that section? In the first strike at any attempt to forcibly take land, you don't get a rewrite. (I say rewrite because you are expected to give the moderator full details on the project before you activate it, not after. Thus, if Bismarck wanted to give specifics, he should have done so when he first talked to Sith.) How could I have known that Bismarck felt he should have gotten a rewrite without consulting him on the subject? If I'm not expected to know that, then how is that an instance of bias? Rpvictor 03:03, September 10, 2011 (UTC) : The consultation with Bismarck is completely different from the accusation of bias within the wiki topic. Like I said before, I believe that the Sea Hawk section was biased because it gave me the impression of it backing up your stance on the issue itself. I mentioned the consultation with Bismarck because it was to justify the only reason why you claim that Sea Hawk lacked specifics as well as being vague. : When it comes to first strike pertaining attempts to forcibly take land, you actually are allowed to rewrite it as you wish before it is moderated (I used to make numerous spelling and wording mistakes, such as actually attacking Germany instead of Paris, that were fixed before the narrator was able to moderate). Regardless of all of that, however, there was still no formal debate on the issue between you, Bismarck, and Sith in the same Friends Chat, and because of that, I do not believe that Sith's decision to void Sea Hawk was educated enough to be justified, whether or not the outcome might've been the same. -Bowswer5 :: Is your objection is to my portrayal of the events or the events themselves? :: You claim that the paragraph, as currently written, is a defense of its voiding and is thus biased. I explain that most of the details in the paragraph are new information, and all of your counterarguments regard why you feel Sea Hawk should not have been voided. Counter my argument, cede the point and claim it's biased for a different reason or stop arguing. Rpvictor 03:32, September 11, 2011 (UTC) ::: At this point I know for sure that the paragraph is biased, just judging from your first sentence. The paragraph itself should not show evidence or give the impression that it was solely your own portrayal of the events, otherwise it portrays the event from a limited perspective and is easily vulnerable to claims of being biased. There is a reason why articles like the one we are debating about are written in third person. ::: I also won't stop arguing just because of your say so. You fail to recognize the one-sided impression that the paragraph is giving to readers. The paragraph doesn't display the incident from the viewpoint of everyone else let alone Bismarck's perspective; I'm only hearing your side of the story and not from anyone else, which incorporates bias. Even Bismarck agreed with me on this. -Bowswer5 :::: I said that it was my portrayal of events because I wrote that section, not because it's my personal space to commentate. As for your claim that the paragraph should not even seem biased, that is impossible. For instance, a conservative will claim the New York Times is biased while a liberal will not. The inverse applies to National Review. :::: I have asked you repeatedly to tell me what specific parts of the paragraph are biased. All you are doing is repeating the claim that it is biased. Either give me an example of bias, defend your earlier examples, stop arguing or I will suspend you from the Wiki. Rpvictor 23:49, September 11, 2011 (UTC)